Early Christian Doctrine on Jesus Christ

This essay addresses some prominent stages in the development of doctrine about Jesus Christ
during the period preceding the Church Councils of late antiquity. How did the early Church
define its beliefs that Jesus had risen from the dead and that he was the Son of God? How were
these beliefs reflected and preserved in the structures of organization and authority that arose in
the first five centuries following the death of Jesus?

Early Christian doctrines developed and were shaped over time; they were neither fixed nor
stable. Once a doctrine was established it often necessitated a subsequent doctrine to define more
precisely what was meant and to clarify the subtle nuances. Lived experience and understanding
was the basis for the emergence of forming and re-forming doctrine. In other words, the need to
develop doctrine about Jesus Christ emerged from the need to sort out what was truly Christian
experience and life. In the words of the early church historian, Joseph Kelly:

The story of the Church begins at Pentecost with a frightened group of disciples wondering what
will happen to them; it progresses through an almost frenetic attempt to win over the outside
world before the Second Coming; it focuses on an epic struggle with the most powerful empire of
the ancient world; it reaches its high point with the conversion of that empire to the new faith; it
closes with the gradual decline of a great civilization and the emergence of a new world. It has a
large canvas and broad brush strokes. While we must pay meticulous attention to the particulars,
we must never forget the general(Kelly, "Why Study Early Church History?" 5)

Three areas are addressed with regard to the formation of doctrine on Jesus Christ in this essay:
the controversy over Christ's Resurrection, the controversy over the True Church, and the
controversy over Persecution and Martyrdom.

The Controversy over Christ's Resurrection

How did Christians understand that Christ rose from the dead? What were the social, religious,
and political ramifications of these competing understandings of the resurrection?

Images of resurrection (Dan. 12:1-2; 2 Macc. 7) and of immortality (Wisdom of Solomon 2:23; 4
Maccabees) are found in several apocryphal texts. Jesus' own defense of resurrection against the
Sadducees in Mark 12:18-27 suggests that the topic remained open to debate. Thus, it is not
surprising that there is significant variance between the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection.
References to appearances of Jesus differ widely (Mk. 16:7; Mt. 28:9-10; Jn 20:11-18; Lk 24:13
49; Jn 20: 19-29) These passages offer different witnesses to the resurrection and different
accounts of what was seen.The empty tomb, as in Gal. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:3-10, "only confirms a
faith in Jesus' resurrection that had its origins in independent acts of divine revelation." (Pheme
Perkins, "Resurrection," 781) It is no surprise that speculation about the nature of his resurrected
body was one result: was it a physical/bodily resurrection or a spiritual one?

In her work, The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels has argued that the debate over the
nature of the resurrection of Christ centered on interpretation of two specific Biblical references:
Lk 24:36-43; Jn 20: 19-29.

While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be
with you." They were startled and terrified, and though that they were seeing a ghost. He said
to them, "Why are you frightened and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and
my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as
you see that I have." And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While
in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, "Have you anything here
to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence. (Lk. 24:
36-43, NOAB, 1994)

But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.
So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the
mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side,
I will not believe." A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with
them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with
you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand
and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe." (Jn. 20:24-27, NOAB, 1994)

Pagels writes that "what makes these Christian accounts so extraordinary is not the claim that his
friends had 'seen' Jesus after his death-ghost stories, hallucinations, and visions were even more
commonplace then than now-but that they saw an actual human being." (The Gnostic Gospels,
3)

Several prominent figures from the early church community such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and
Origen argued for the literal view of resurrection. These men created an explicit connection
between the resurrected body and a doctrine of soteriology. Irenaeus, for instance, in his work
Against Heresies, insists that the New Testament taught that the resurrection implied
transformation of the body (5.7.1-2; 5.13.1).

The majority of gnostic Christians rejected the theory of a bodily resurrection and argued that the
risen Lord was a purely divine, spiritual being and that resurrection of the faithful meant ascent
of the soul to that heavenly status, not transformation of the embodied person. To them, the
resurrection was not a unique event in the past: instead, it symbolized how Christ's presence could be experienced
in the present. What mattered was not literal seeing, but spiritual vision. They pointed out that
many who witnessed the events of Jesus' life remained blind to their meaning. The disciples
themselves often misunderstood what Jesus said: those who announced that their dead master
had come back physically to life mistook a spiritual truth for an actual event. But the true
disciple may never have seen the earthly Jesus, having been born of the wrong time, as Paul said
of himself (1 Cor. 15:8). Yet this physical disability may become a spiritual advantage: such
persons, like Paul, may encounter Christ first on the level of inner experience. (Pagels, The
Gnostic Gospels, 12)

The gnostic treatise, the Apocalypse of Peter, suggests that there was adisjunction between
Jesus and Christ, that the death of body did not imply a suffering of spirit, and that "spiritual
vision" played a key role in whether a person would be able to experience the resurrected Christ.

The legacy of Plato also influenced those who posited a view distinct from that of a bodily
resurrection. Plato's argument for the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo is indicative of the
prevalent philosophical position that the soul was immortal while the body was not. Because
the essence of the soul is that it is "that which gives life," and because the soul can never admit of
its opposite, it is deathless; what is deathless is indestructible, so the soul is indestructible-it is
immortal. Justin Martyr, in his work, On the Resurrection, counters this view through the
assertion that the "image of God" in Genesis included the body, so God's creative power could
transform it to receive immortality along with the soul.

By the beginning of the third century,the position of Justin Martyr and of others that advanced
a view of bodily resurrection prevailed. The triumph of this view was assisted by the lack of
effort to achieve coherency in doctrine, organization, and authority among gnostic groups (which,
by nature, tended to be factious and guided by the teachings of a specific leader). By the time of
the Council of Nicea in 325 CE belief in a bodily resurrection will become a component of a
creedal formula.

The Controversy over the True Church

Many pagan intellectuals of the second and third centuries, like Galen and Celsus, claimed that
Christianity was unreasonable and unsound. Two prominent Christians in this period, Justin
Martyr and Irenaeus, sought to address the reasonableness of Christian faith and doctrine as a
way of navigating the tension between Christianity and Roman society, between religion and
culture.

Galen was born in Pergamum in western Asia Minor (ca. 130). He studied philosophy and then
medicine in Alexandria; after these studies he settled in Rome. His criticism of Christianity is
essentially philosophical; he attacks the soundness of the doctrines of a contemporary
philosophical school (in this case, a way of life).

It is in this sense that Galen identified the early Christian movement as a philosophical school.
Christians led people to embrace lives of discipline and self-control, to pursue justice, to
overcome the fear of death. Though they did not provide men and women with intellectual
foundations for their beliefs, they did achieve a way of life not inferior to that led by 'those who
are truly philosophers.' (Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 82)

Galen's critique of Christian doctrines is found in his work, On the Usefulness of the Parts of the
Body (ca. 170 CE). Among many other teachings, the creation account in the book of Genesis
receives treatment. Here, Galen objects to the implication that God brought things into being
solely by an act of will without regard to any prior act of reasoning or foresight. He also objects
to the implication in the Genesis account that the world was created out of what did not already
exist.

The idea that the world came into existence out of non-being was abhorrent to the Greeks. For
Aristotle, it is axiomatic that 'nothing can come out of what does not exist.' Likewise, Plutarch
writes: 'The substance or matter out of which [the kosmos] has come into being did not come to
be but was always available to the demiurge to whom it submitted itself for disposing and
ordering, for the source of what comes into being is not what does not exist, but as in the case of
a house and a garment and a statue, what is not in good and sufficient condition.' (Wilken, The
Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 90)

Justin Martyr was a contemporary of Galen who attempted to present the reasonableness of the
Christian faith. Justin was educated at Ephesus where he studied philosophy. He underwent a
profound conversion experience and wrote with zeal in support of his new religious faith. This
experience is recorded in his work, Dialogues with Trypho (c. 160). It is an interesting account, in
part, because he equates his conversion to Christianity as a conversion to philosophy. As an
adult, he moved to Rome where he carried on a long teaching ministry during the reign of Emperor
Antoninus Pius (138-161). He addressed two apologies for Christianity (the First Apology was
addressed to this emperor, ca. 151; the Second Apology was addressed to the Roman senate). He
appeals to the common reason of his audiences in their judgment of the Christian faith; he
beseeches them to avoid believing slanders against Christians until they have been proven true.
Furthermore, Justin called for judgement of Christians to be grounded in precisely that which
Galen valued about the faith, namely, the virtuous life of the Christian. In response to charges
that Christian teachings are unreasonable, Justin selectively spoke of Christ in philosophical
terms by referring to Christ as the Logos (Word/Reason). In the Second Apology Justin writes:
"And [God's] Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Logos, who was also with him and was
begotten before the works [of creation], when at first he created and arranged all things by him
[the Logos], is called Christ." Justin

uses the concept of the divine Logos or Reason both to explain how the transcendent Father of all
deals with the inferior, created order of things, and to justify his faith in the revelation made by
God through the prophets and in Christ. The divine Logos inspired the prophets, he says, and
was present in its entirety in Jesus Christ. This inspiring activity and its culmination in the
actual incarnation are special cases of divine immanence.(Chadwick, The Early Church, 77)

Justin Martyr subordinated Christ as Logos to God the Father in order to preserve the Judaic
concept of monotheism, the oneness of God the Father, and to distinguish God the Father from
all that he was not.

In his work, True Doctrine, the late 2C philosopher Celsus proffered what has been called "the
earliest extended, systematic treatment of Christianity by an outsider" (Gary Burke, "Celsus,"
188). Celsus was familiar with the work of Justin Martyr, had read many Christian writings, and
had observed Christians. Celsus charged that Christianity was an unreasonable faith on the basis
of its doctrines, its founder, and its spilt from the tradition of Judaism. One of the doctrines
under his scrutiny was the belief in a bodily resurrection. Celsus' critique pointed out that
"instead of recognizing that God was subject to the laws of nature and of reason, Christians
believed in a God who stood above and beyond nature and who was capable of doing whatever at
will. A God who is contrary to reason is not a fit object of devotion." (Wilken, The Christians as
the Romans Saw Them, 106) The grounds for believing this, and many other Christian doctrines,
lay in faith that fails to be grounded in reason and in proof. Regarding Christ, Celsus addressed
Christian claims about the virgin birth, the baptism by John, the death and resurrection of Jesus,
and the miracles and teachings of Jesus. The basis for the critique in each of these areas is the
fact that the only source upon which evidence rests is the gospels and that these are based on
hearsay and are unverifiable. Finally, Celsus argued that the Christian repudiation of its origin
proved the illegitimacy of the new movement. Christianity had deserted its mother tradition.
"Christians may have claimed to have the correct interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, but on
those points which were clearly set forth in the Scripture-such as circumcision and the keeping of
the Sabbath, the festivals and the food laws-Christians wantonly disregarded the meaning of the
very books they claimed as their own." (Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 116)
Christianity consciously chose to divorce itself from the two traditions of antiquity through
which it would have gained credibilty: Roman religion and Judaism.

Irenaeus was born in Asia Minor, and went to southern Gaul as a missionary; in 177-178 CE, as
a priest, he went to the bishop of Rome to intercede on behalf of the martyr church of Gaul.
Irenaeus felt that the diversification of doctrines, groups, and sects was a threat to the Christian
message and to the universal church. He was aware that responses to charges by pagans such as
Celsus necessitated a strong, unified, front. In his work, Against Heresies, he constructs an
argument for the Christian church by indicating those features by which the true church must be
recognized: ministry, canon, creed. Irenaeus stressed on the equation: apostolic
succession=authority.

Of whom did the Lord declare, 'Who then shall be a faithful steward (actor), good and wise,
whom the Lord sets over His household?' Paul the, teaching us where one may find such, says,
'God has placed in the Church first apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers.' Where the
gifts of the Lord have been placed there it behooves us to learn the truth, [namely] from those
who possess the succession of the Church which is from the apostles(Irenaeus, Against
Heresies, Book IV, chapter 26, section 5)

Christians must refer back to the tradition of the apostles, and this has been handed down in the
churches where it is possible to trace the line back to the apostles through the succession of
bishops.

These churches are the sole safeguard of Scripture, or the authoritative canon of the New
Testament. Authority to determine the authentic teaching of the church is vested in those who
derive from apostolic succession. Irenaeus decreed that no heed be paid to the scriptures that
were handed down outside the apostolic succession. As far as Irenaeus was concerned, four
Gospels were universally recognized and no more. Directly or indirectly they were the work of
one of the four great apostles, as were the other books he recognized: Matthew (Gospel), Peter
(Epistle, Gospel of Mark), Paul (Epistles, Gospel of Luke and Acts), John (Gospel, Revelation,
Epistles).

But that these Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor a diminution
of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such [arguments]. For, since God made
all things in due proportion and adaptation, it was fit also that the outward aspect of the Gospel
should be well arranged and harmonized." (Book III, chapter 11, section 9)

Finally, the true church proclaims an identical message throughout the world.

The Church, though dispersed through the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has
received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father
Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; And in one
Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvationand the passion, and the
death and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension in the flesh of the beloved Christ
Jesus, our Lord (Book I, chapter 10, section 1)

Irenaeus taught that this Rule of Faith is what the bishops teach now and therefore comes down
from the apostles. The Council of Nicea in 325 CE will prove to create a creed and to enforce a
governing hierarchical structure that emulate much of what Irenaeus advocates; as well, the
prevailing controversy over Arianism, which forms the basis for this ecumenical gathering, will
take up the issue the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ proposed by Justin
Martyr.

The Controversy overMartyrdom and Persecution

How did the private and public dimensions of persecution and martyrdom supply a means by
which early Christians could identify with Jesus Christ? From the perspective of philosophical
and pagan critics like Galen, Celsus, and Porphyry, Christians maintained unreasonable doctrine
and recruited from the dregs of society, namely, the ignorant and poor. Common slanders against
Christians varied. There is evidence of Christians being criticized as bad citizens for their refusal
to partake in imperial cult and of charges that Christians were practitioners of incest and of
cannibalism. Roman attitudes toward religion were governed by pietas (duty) and by
pragmatism. Citizens were required to partake in practice of the state religion; worship of the
emperor and of the state-sanctioned gods was a political duty.

Several early Christian apologists headed a movement to counter such attacks. The most
prominent of these is Justin Martyr. In his letters to the Senate and to the Emperor, noted
above, Justin is at pains to appeal to the reason of these bodies in their decisions about the
reasonableness of Christian doctrine and practice. He counters the philosophical and common
slanders of the Romans with a succinct statement: Christians are not a secret society with
unreasonable doctrines and practices (illustrated by one of the earliest expressions of sacramental
theology concerning the practices of baptism and eucharist); Christians are, in fact, good citizens
as they comply with obligations to pray for (although not to) the Emperor, to obey the dictates
of the Emperor, and to pay taxes.

Yet, despite the work of apologists, like Justin, Christianity was the object of sporadic, localized
persecutions over the course of the first several centuries. Occasional persecution occurred under
Emperors Nero (64 CE), Domitian (81-96 CE), Trajan (98-117 CE), and Marcus Aurelius (161
180 CE). Empire-wide persecution is implemented under the rule of Emperors Diocletian and
Galerius.

There is little evidence for many of these early persecutions. The Roman historian, Tacitus,
records that persecution under Emperor Nero was due to his blaming the impurity of the
Christians in Rome for the burning of that city in 64 CE. Persecution of Christians under
Emperor Domitian revolved around charges that they refused to worship an image of the emperor
as "Lord and God."

A letter dated ca. 112 CE from Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (northern Asia Minor),
seeks the advice of Emperor Trajan on how to handle the Christians in the area. Pliny explains
that Christianity had spread widely in the towns and countryside of his province and that its
spread has resulted in empty pagan temples. Several concerned citizens had appealed to Pliny
who decided to execute some Christians who were not Roman citizens and to arrest and send to
Rome for trial other Christians who were Roman citizens. Should the mere profession of
Christianity have been sufficient grounds for the deaths of these persons? Could a Christian be
forgiven after recanting? Pliny is certain that his course of action thus far has been appropriate.
He writes that the killing of Christians was merited by the simple fact that they had been
stubborn in their refusal to recant and, in this, failed to obey political authority. Trajan's
response leaves too many of Pliny's queries unanswered. Trajan tells Pliny to persecute
Christians only under the following conditions: if a Roman citizen charged someone with being a
Christian, the accused could be tried and punished if found guilty. Pardon should be granted for
those accused who offer prayers to the gods.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp, the oldest account of a Christian martyrdom outside of the New
Testament, is a letter recounting the death of Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, who is believed to
have died during persecution of Christians under Emperor Marcus Aurelius. The displeasure of
the local gods at Lyons and Vienne due to Christian impiety was the motive for persecution.

When Diocletian (284-305 CE) became emperor, the Roman Empire had undergone many years
of chaos and instability. Diocletian sought to change this. He issued a major reorganization of the
empire along with a restructuring of defense, currency, pricing, and taxation. An implacable tax
system closed in on the citizens because of the need to finance a sizeable army and huge building
spree. Furthermore, Diocletian sought to unify the citizens of his empire through appeal to their
religious sensibilities. Under Diocletian, emperor worship peaked: Diocletian wore a diadem and
carried a sceptre, and every loyal citizen was expected to adore him.

In order to ensure political stability, Diocletian divided the empire into four regions (called a
tetrarchy-rule by four men), with two Emperors in the East (an augusti and a caesar) and two
Emperors in the West (an augusti and a caesar). In order for the government to be passed along
smoothly in case of the death of one of the Augusti, each Augustus appointed a Caesar who was
designated to replace him should he die or abdicate. In theory the four emperors ruled as
colleagues and all official pronouncements were issued in their joint names. In practice they
administered separate zones with their own governments and armies. The tetrarchy did produce
the desired stability. The ninety-six provinces of the Empire were grouped into twelve dioceses.

After securing the boundaries of the empire, Diocletian tried to revive the ancient pagan religion
of Rome; he believed that uniting the country under one religion would make it stronger. This
belief led him to enact a series of edicts of persecution against the Christians. Eusebius of
Caesarea, an early church historian and author of the Ecclesiastical History tells us that in 303 CE
the question of loyalty in the army was raised; many thought that Christians were responsible
for citing disloyalty. Diocletian and his caesar, Galerius, consulted the augurs in the nearby
pagan temple (in Nicomedia) and it was revealed that during the consultation some of the
Christians were blessing themselves by making the sign of the cross; as a result, the augurs could
not "read" the sacrifice. Diocletian then consulted Apollo who told him that the Christians had
caused the false oracles.

An edict against Christians was then posted in Nicomedia on February 23, 303 CE, calling for the
destruction of all churches, the surrender of all Bibles and liturgical books, the confiscation of
sacred vessels, and the prohibition of Christian worship.

Several months later, a second edict was issued, once again confined to the East. It ordered for
the arrest of the clergy. However, due to the large numbers of Christians, an amnesty was
granted on condition of sacrifice.

In 304 CE, a third edict was issued that all citizens of the Empire were required to sacrifice on
pain of death. However, although this edict was empire-wide, in reality its impact was limited to
the East. Persecution did not strike all of the Empire equally: Constantius (in Gaul, Britain, and
Trier) failed to execute anyone but did destroy some churches.

In 304/305 CE, Diocletian and Maximian retired from service and Galerius and Constantius were
elevated to the rank of Augusti.

In 305 CE, Galerius and Maxmin Daia "produce a minor blood bath" (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History, ch.122). In 311 CE, while Galerius was on his deathbed dying in great pain, he issued an
edict in which he explains that he had tried to persuade the Christians to return to the religion of
their forefathers, but that "very many persisted in their determination," and that he now grants
them toleration and the right of assembly in return for which he begs them to pray for his health
and for the defense of the State. Galerius died less than a year later (312 CE); Maximin Daia
became Augustus of the East.

In 306 CE, Constantius died and his son, Constantine (271-337 CE), assumed the charge as
Augustus of the Western half of the Roman Empire. Upon coming to power Constantine
provided for restitution to Christians. His personal devotions, however, he offered first to Mars
and then increasingly to Apollo. He also confronted a rival to the title Augustus in the Western
half of the Roman Empire. Maxentius, son of Maximian, had himself declared Augustus in Rome
on October 28, 306. Open hostilities and tensions between them were finally resolved at the
Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 CE.

According to Lactantius (a pagan whom Constantine appointed tutor of his son), Constantine
was commanded in a dream to place the sign of Christ on the shields of his soldiers and it was
this sign which was deemed responsible for his victory. Twenty-five years later the Church
historian, Eusebius, gives us a different picture (more elaborate and less convincing) in his Life of
Constantine. Here, when Constantine and his army were on the march toward Rome-neither the
time nor the location is specified-they observed in broad daylight a strange phenomenon in the
sky: a cross of light and the words "by this sign you will be victor." During the next night, so
Eusebius' account continues, Christ appeared to Constantine and instructed him to place the
heavenly sign on the battle standards of his army.

Whatever vision, if any, Constantine experienced the accounts of Lactantius and Eusebius insist
that he attributed his victory to the power of "the Gods of the Christians." The context of this
"battle" is noteworthy: in reality, it was more probably a siege. Because Maxentius' army was
not prepared, many of his soldiers fled. It is likely, then, that Constantine proclaimed his
allegiance to the Christian god before a battle he knew that he would win.

While he was fighting his battle in the western half of the empire,in 312 CE, there was civil war
in the eastern part of the empire; Licinius defeated Maximin Daia to become sole ruler of the
eastern part of the empire.

Shortly after, in 313 CE, in Milan, Constantine and Licinius issued a joint policy of religious
freedom for all citizens of the empire, pagan and Christian alike, and called for the restoration of
all property, whether belonging to individual Christians or to churches as corporations that was
removed during time of persecution. This document is called the Edict of Toleration or the Edict
of Milan.

In 324 CE, Licinius and Constantine went to war. Constantine was victorious, thereby
becoming the sole ruler of the entire Roman Empire. He made Constantinople (ancient Greek
city of Byzantium) his capital and, within a year of his victory, he was called to enter
ecclesiastical politics by resolving the dispute that led to the first ecumenical church council, the
Council of Nicea (325 CE).

Works Cited

Burke, Gary. "Celsus," in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, edited by Everett

Ferguson (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.), pp. 188-189.

Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church (New York: Viking Penguin, 1967).

Kelly, Joseph. "Why Study Early Church History?" in Early Christianity: Origins and